Autism Spectrum Disorder, Disruptive Behavior
Conditions
Brief summary
This study proposes to redesign the RUBI Parent Training program, a low-intensity intervention for youth with autism spectrum disorder and disruptive behavior, for use by school personnel in the classroom. Using a mixed-methods approach, 40 school staff members from 20 elementary schools will be recruited to inform current classroom behavior management practices and RUBI redesign needs.
Detailed description
Approximately 50% of children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) exhibit disruptive behaviors such as tantrums, aggression, and noncompliance that significantly impact social, adaptive, and academic functioning. The RUBI program is an evidence-based parent-mediated intervention that improves disruptive behavior in children with ASD. Considering schools serve as the primary intervention setting for children with ASD, and teachers and school staff often struggle to address challenging behavior, there is an opportunity to meaningfully improve care by adapting RUBI for delivery in schools. To address these needs, the Discover, Design/Build, Test (DDBT) framework,which leverages user-centered design and implementation science, will be used to engage 40 end users from 20 elementary schools to inform current classroom behavior management practices and redesign needs for the RUBI curriculum to ensure that the modified curriculum (RUBI in Educational Settings; RUBIES) is useful and useable for school personnel who work with children with ASD. Specific aims include: Aim 1: Identify the contextual constraints and end users (teachers, school psychologists, behavior technicians, classroom aides) relevant to the management of disruptive behavior in the classroom. Through in-class behavioral observations and interviews, Aim 1 will allow us to understand the values and priorities of the school context and end users directly involved with children with ASD (e.g. resources, work flow, policies). Aim 2: Identify targets for RUBI redesign. Using in-depth intervention demonstration of RUBI paired with behavioral rehearsal, prospective think-aloud, and structured assessment methods, Aim 2 will allow us to determine which RUBI components should be retained, eliminated, or modified to address the needs of the context and end-users identified in Aim 1. Aim 3: Iteratively adapt RUBI content and procedures based on identified targets for redesign and continual user testing to improve the hypothesized mechanisms of redesign (usability) and perceptual implementation outcomes (feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness). Aim 3 will allow us to determine the extent to which redesigned RUBI, or RUBIES, improves usability and implementation outcomes.
Interventions
Sponsors
National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)
University of Washington
Study design
Observational model
COHORT
Time perspective
RETROSPECTIVE
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
* Elementary school (kindergarten through 5th grade) personnel (i.e. general and special education teachers, school psychologist, paraprofessionals) * Works with at least one student with ASD for part of the day
Exclusion criteria
-School personnel who do not have contact with youth with ASD during the work day
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Acceptability of Intervention Measure (AIM): 5-point scale | Completed by participants during the 4-hour RUBI Redesign meeting (Aim 1) | The 4-item AIM assesses participants' acceptability of RUBI(ES). Raters score items on a 5-point scale ranging from (1) Completely Disagree to (5) Completely Agree. Internal consistency (α = .89) and test-retest reliability were good (α = .83). |
| Intervention Appropriateness Measure (IAM): 5-point scale | Completed by participants during the 4-hour RUBI Redesign meeting (Aim 1) | The 4-item IAM assesses the appropriateness of RUBI(ES). Raters score each item on a 5-point scale ranging from (1) Completely Disagree to (5) Completely Agree. Internal consistency (α = .87) and test-retest reliability were good (α = .87). |
| Feasibility of Intervention Measure (FIM): 5-point scale | Completed by participants during the 4-hour RUBI Redesign meeting (Aim 1) | The 4-item FIM assesses the feasibility of RUBI(ES). Raters score each item on a 5-point scale ranging from (1) Completely Disagree to (5) Completely Agree. Internal consistency (α = .89) and test-retest reliability were good (α = .88). |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Intervention Usability Scale (IUS) | Completed by participants during the 4-hour RUBI Redesign meeting (Aim 1) | The 10-item IUS is adapted from the System Usability Scale and assesses intervention usability on a 5-point scale ranging from (1) Strongly Disagree to (5) Strongly Agree. A score ≥70 on the IUS demonstrates good or better usability. |
Other
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Teacher Demographics | Completed by participants at the in-class behavior observation, 4-hour RUBI Redesign meeting, 2 hour RUBIES Collaborative design meeting, or 4 hour RUBIES Redesign meeting | Measures individual characteristics (age, sex, gender identity, race/ethnicity, years' experience, etc.). |
| School Demographics | Collected over the course of the 12 month study through public record review of schools where participants are employed | School Demographics (free/reduced price lunch rate, school size, number of students with disabilities, resources, services, etc.) will be collected through the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction and school records. |
Countries
United States
Outcome results
None listed